Ping
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 298
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Hmm....
Looks like 10 Mirage-2000 have crashed since its induction. 49 Mirages acquired in the 1980's + 10 Mirages in 2007 = 59 total
Currently only 51 was present for the upgrade. So 8 crashed. But the new crash today & a few days before makes the total crashes to 10.
The best aircraft to compare with the Mirage safety record is the MiG-29's safety record because they both were inducted side by side simultaneously.
70 MiG-29's acquired in the 80's + 10 MiG-29s in the 90's = 80 Total
Of which 7 are MiG-29UB variant which is only a training aircraft. It has no radar and so it cannot be used as a BVR fighter. So there are a total of 73 Single seat MiG-29s.
Of the 73, 63 was signed to be upgraded to UPG/SMT standard. So 10 have crashed. However after the deal was signed 2 MiG-29s have crashed. So the number is 61 MiG-29s in the IAF inventory. So 12 crashes in total.
Mirage-2000
49 + 10 - 10 = 49 (crash % = 17%)
MiG-29
73 - 12 = 61 (crash % = 16%)
So Mirage-2000's safely record is very slightly poorer than MiG-29's. Just 1%. However that's not all we should take into consideration. Mirage-2000 is a single engined fighter so it's more risky and prone to crashes than a twin engined MiG-29. French/Western quality over soviet designs explains that. Or does it? Mirage-2000 was and still is the pampered lady of the IAF. They guard her like she is a princess. Mirage-2000 is based in Gwalior far far away from the dangers of the front line bases in the border. Distance from Gwalior to the Pakistani border is close to 500kms. While All the IAF MiG-29s are based in Adampur which is a little over 50 miles from the Border! MiG-29s will have to perform more routine Air patrol sorties and hence more flying time, more take-offs and landings, contributing to more accidents. Also the 10 second hand mirages are newer bought in 2007(I bet all the 10 crashed are from the previous 49 mirages batch).So it's not that simple comparing the fighters safety record.
Not really a point about crashes but, a Mirage-2000, although a single engined fighter, costed us 25 million dollars back in the 1980s. And the capitalist french accepted no less than precious foreign exchange back then. However MiG-29 costed us, both in 1980s and the 90's, only 11 million dollars. That too we paid part of the amount in Indian Rupees, tea, wheat and other Agricultural produce, which the soviets accepted as a gesture of friendship. But then again, it isn't so simple because a Mirage is maintenance friendly compared to a MiG-29, and the cost of maintenance of a twin engined fighter is obviously more than a single engines one. However again, to throw a spanner into the logic before you choose which one is better, the spare parts of French Mirage-2000 are extremely costly compared to the MiG-29.
In the end, both fighters have their own advantages and disadvantages, and comparing is tough. But as of now, Mirage are more prone to crashes than the MiG-29.
Looks like 10 Mirage-2000 have crashed since its induction. 49 Mirages acquired in the 1980's + 10 Mirages in 2007 = 59 total
Currently only 51 was present for the upgrade. So 8 crashed. But the new crash today & a few days before makes the total crashes to 10.
The best aircraft to compare with the Mirage safety record is the MiG-29's safety record because they both were inducted side by side simultaneously.
70 MiG-29's acquired in the 80's + 10 MiG-29s in the 90's = 80 Total
Of which 7 are MiG-29UB variant which is only a training aircraft. It has no radar and so it cannot be used as a BVR fighter. So there are a total of 73 Single seat MiG-29s.
Of the 73, 63 was signed to be upgraded to UPG/SMT standard. So 10 have crashed. However after the deal was signed 2 MiG-29s have crashed. So the number is 61 MiG-29s in the IAF inventory. So 12 crashes in total.
Mirage-2000
49 + 10 - 10 = 49 (crash % = 17%)
MiG-29
73 - 12 = 61 (crash % = 16%)
So Mirage-2000's safely record is very slightly poorer than MiG-29's. Just 1%. However that's not all we should take into consideration. Mirage-2000 is a single engined fighter so it's more risky and prone to crashes than a twin engined MiG-29. French/Western quality over soviet designs explains that. Or does it? Mirage-2000 was and still is the pampered lady of the IAF. They guard her like she is a princess. Mirage-2000 is based in Gwalior far far away from the dangers of the front line bases in the border. Distance from Gwalior to the Pakistani border is close to 500kms. While All the IAF MiG-29s are based in Adampur which is a little over 50 miles from the Border! MiG-29s will have to perform more routine Air patrol sorties and hence more flying time, more take-offs and landings, contributing to more accidents. Also the 10 second hand mirages are newer bought in 2007(I bet all the 10 crashed are from the previous 49 mirages batch).So it's not that simple comparing the fighters safety record.
Not really a point about crashes but, a Mirage-2000, although a single engined fighter, costed us 25 million dollars back in the 1980s. And the capitalist french accepted no less than precious foreign exchange back then. However MiG-29 costed us, both in 1980s and the 90's, only 11 million dollars. That too we paid part of the amount in Indian Rupees, tea, wheat and other Agricultural produce, which the soviets accepted as a gesture of friendship. But then again, it isn't so simple because a Mirage is maintenance friendly compared to a MiG-29, and the cost of maintenance of a twin engined fighter is obviously more than a single engines one. However again, to throw a spanner into the logic before you choose which one is better, the spare parts of French Mirage-2000 are extremely costly compared to the MiG-29.
In the end, both fighters have their own advantages and disadvantages, and comparing is tough. But as of now, Mirage are more prone to crashes than the MiG-29.
... I just came to learn about the deal ...
